Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

mediaite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 471 posts

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#121

Post by danenania »

nemothekid wrote: post #21
anm89 wrote: post #8

Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

The advertisers are bluffing when they threaten these boycotts. They're not going to stop advertising on google, facebook, twitter, etc., which these days probably represents a majority of their advertising budget and even more of their ROI. They'll make threats because it costs them nothing, but all the platforms need to do is say "no" and that would be the end of it. Even better: immediately ban the accounts of companies that make these threats. They won't receive any more of them.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#122

Post by syshum »

namlem wrote: post #98
syshum wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Platforms that claim to be open content systems (i.e it is not topic limited like say a Mac Forum) should only remove content that is illegal in nature, i.e Sexual Exploitation of minors, True Threats, etc. > popular anti-vax since Anti-Vax has now been refined to include anyone that opposes government mandated vaccinations, I am a Vaxxed Anti-Vaxer as I oppose all government mandates. People should be free to choose…

You would never want to use a big platform that had no moderation, the quality would be shit. For a small, niche platform, it's fine, but as platforms grow they get filled with 13 year-olds posting garbage, which someone has to clean up to avoid driving away other users.

I do not want to, nor do I use any of the big platforms now... I have no twitter account, no facebook account, no insta account, no tiktok account, etc...

I have locals.com account, reddit accounts (which is diminishing amount of my usage as they continue to "mainstream" aka censor the site) , and HN, that is pretty much it for me

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#124

Post by eli »

RHSeeger wrote: post #95
eli wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my point. There is no objectively reasonable way to do this. What you think is reasonable to take down and what I think is reasonable to take down are not going to always agree. I'm not sure what "elsewhere in life" means, but bookstores choose what books they will sell while also not necessarily endorsing every book they carry.

> I refuse to take down anything that doesn't come with the force of law to take it down and > I refuse to take down this video, because I do not think it needs to be taken down are two VERY different things. The first one is a political choice about taking down videos in general. The second one is a political choice about a specific topic. The second one is more or less similar to taking down the video because you t…

I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree. They're only different in the abstract. At some point an incredibly noxious (but legal) video gets posted, complaints pour in, and you are either continuing to host it or you aren't. That's a decision and having a policy of "we never remove legal videos" doesn't absolve you.

Anyway, a social platform that only removes illegal content (not even spam?) sounds absolutely dreadful and I would not use it and no one would pay to advertise on it.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#125

Post by hvac »

throwawayswede wrote: post #72
hvac wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a certain political opinion is not a protected class in the US

That's not what this is about. In both cases, the state is forcing an company to do something they don't want. The only difference is that you agree with the one but not the other.

Yes, because the difference is that they are essentially immutable personal traits. The parent was presenting this scenario as an equivalent one and I don't think they are.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#126

Post by akira2501 »

eli wrote: post #40
anm89 wrote: post #8

Naval Ravikant seems to be a divisive figure here but I think he made a profound point when he discussed this topic on Joe Rogan's podcast. The point was that, as a platform, you cross a line which is very difficult to ever revert when you optionally censor your platform in response to political pressure because both sides are then forced from a game theory perspective to aggressively pursue censoring your platform i…

> They caved to censoring things that were reasonable, but now anyone can make them censor anything as long as they have some poltical power somewhere. Can you define "reasonable" here in an objective way that we could all agree on? There's no such thing as neutrality. Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.

> Leaving up a popular anti-vax video is just as political a decision as taking it down.

Why is it political? They didn't commission the content or request that it be created and hosted on their platform in any way. They're offering the same reasonable self-hosting process that they offer to anyone who shows up with an email address.

It only seems to become political when you decide to take action and either protect or remove the material. You're now no longer a disinterested third party, you're making editorial decisions and it's hard to believe they've taken this step without considering the impact of those decisions.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#127

Post by [deleted] »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #71
ntrz wrote: post #7

> The German court held that YouTube failed to make its enforcement authority clear in its contract with the account operator who posted the video. Does YouTube's TOS really not contain statements giving them the ability to stop hosting any video, at any time, for any reason? Edit: I guess not: the only content removal clause I see is this one, which is definitely not "we can remove your video for any reason, as long…

Isn't it kind of implied that if you own a platform, you retain the discretion to remove stuff at any time, unless otherwise prohibited? The YouTube terms of service can be updated at any time, and will never include language promising to never take down content.

[deleted]

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#128

Post by [deleted] »

voxic11 wrote: post #43
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

Google's response to pressures from advertisers wasn't to censor anything. They just demonetized videos that the advertisers didn't want to be associated with. Hosting someone's video for free without even interrupting it with ads seems like the opposite of censorship to me. There may be something interesting to say about how the desires of advertisers shapes our discourse, but its not censorship (in this case at lea…

[deleted]

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#129

Post by syshum »

SamBam wrote: post #103
syshum wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why did "advertisers threatened to boycott" due to pressure from "hyperliberal's" that are prputally offended by everything. They tried to get YT to do it, when YT ignored them they went after the money... It is right from the liberal playbook

Consumers objecting to content is as old as television, and even older, and is certainly not owned by "hyperliberals." For example, Conservatives demanded radio stations stop playing the Beatles, and, only slightly more recently, the Dixie Chicks. They called up advertisers as well. You could probably find people complaining to artists' patrons in Medieval texts, if you looked.

Nice what-aboutism... Yes Conservatives used to be just as bad, I was out there in the 90's complaining about authoritarian conservatives.

We libertarians did not mind our flank and Authoritarian liberals today are about 10000000x more of an issue than even the most extreme bible thumping conservative from the 90's ever was

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#130

Post by addicted »

danenania wrote: post #121
nemothekid wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their only winning move was to stay neutral and do nothing but comply with legal requests. No? This narrative is a bit ahistorical - and it's fueled by this idea that hyperliberal boogeyman started censoring everything. If you look at what happened in 2017, Google started "censoring" things because advertisers threatened to boycott . The platforms couldn't stay neutral because advertisers became more and more conce…

The advertisers are bluffing when they threaten these boycotts. They're not going to stop advertising on google, facebook, twitter, etc., which these days probably represents a majority of their advertising budget and even more of their ROI. They'll make threats because it costs them nothing, but all the platforms need to do is say "no" and that would be the end of it. Even better: immediately ban the accounts of com…

They don't need to stop all advertising. They can simply stop advertising on Youtube and focus advertising on Facebook, or stop on Twitter and focus on Tik Tok.

They can pit the providers against each other. And that's basically how a free market works.

Post reply on HN